2pt minimum

[Bullkllr]

Everyone here has their heart in the right place- we'd like to see more deer.

"The reply I got regarding two point or better restriction was "they have this in some other units and it has shown no increase in mature bucks".  HA!  I may not have a degree in wildlife biology but I don't believe them."

It doesn't take a lot of research to support their reply as true. Its been tried many years in many places.
Some research I found (both speak specifically to mule deer):

Virtually every type of hunt, season length, weapon restrictions and choices that can be thought up has been tried in one state or another. Some have been done long enough to see valid results one way or another. Others are not tried long enough to be proven or non-proven means at all. Those that seem to work the best, that is to increase buck to doe ratios and allow populations to be managed at or near carrying capacity are those that have a limited number of tags and or those that have a shortened season that is early enough in the year as to not effect the rutting activities of mule deer. Those that do not work are ‘antler point restrictions’ this type of hunting scenario has been tried in several different states with basically the same results. It just doesn’t work.
by Todd A. Black
Could the way we are hunting mule deer in certain areas be further contributing to their decline?
http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/hunt-and-harvest-strategies/

and

Antler point restrictions
Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.
Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.
Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.
Wyoming’s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.
Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.
Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.
Washington tried antler point restrictions in many of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.
Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.
Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.
Mule Deer Working Group. 2003. Mule Deer: Changing landscapes, changing perspectives. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Mule Deer, Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives, is a series of non-technical articles based on technical papers from the book, “Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies” Published by The Berryman Institute, Utah State University.


"Until the WDFW manages the wildlife without the goal of maximum profit."
[/quote]
Herein lies the real problem. The only way to minimize hunters impact is to reduce harvest by reducing seasons, or permits, or I imagine, access. Regarding access, how many more deer might we have if everything was gated?

[bobcat]

I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails. I do agree though, that the best route to increasing deer populations and improving buck to doe ratios, is through limiting the number of hunters. Which of course would mean permit only hunting for blacktail deer. And we all know how well that would go over. That's why at a minimum, I would favor at least elminating doe harvest, COMPLETELY.

[Shoffy]

I'm totally late on this thread, just saw it. I think 2pt min on all west side units is a great idea. The 1st couple years would suck for people that "have to get any deer" but think of the quality after those couple years? And for those people that rely on getting a deer for meat, give out more any doe or any deer draw tags. I think in the long run it would be better for the serious black tail hunters. I can't imagine what the mule deer population would be if it wasn't 3pt better. they would probably be extinct

[kentrek]

I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails. I do agree though, that the best route to increasing deer populations and improving buck to doe ratios, is through limiting the number of hunters. Which of course would mean permit only

or lock more gates, year round (poachers dont have deer seasons)

[kentrek]

I think in the long run it would be better for the serious black tail hunters.

there are very few serious blacktail hunters compared to the average joe

also i havnt met too many serious blacktail hunters who have a hard time finding bucks

[bobcat]

I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails. I do agree though, that the best route to increasing deer populations and improving buck to doe ratios, is through limiting the number of hunters. Which of course would mean permit only

or lock more gates, year round (poachers dont have deer seasons)

The gates are locked year 'round at the Vail Tree Farm, yet from the sounds of it there are very few deer, compared to what it used to be.

But I do agree, gates would certainly help reduce poaching on some areas. I do hate to see a total lack of places where a person can go for a drive in the woods though.

Of course the biggest factor in deer populations is habitat. But there isn't a whole lot that can be done to improve that.

[Bullkllr]

I'm not sure you can use mule deer data to say that point restrictions won't work with blacktails.

I'm not sure either. But the data on blacktails is not nearly as obvious during a quick search. In Washington, the legal difference between the two subspecies is which side of the Cascade Crest the deer is on...

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Regarding Doe harvest their response is "the harvest of does is necessary for balance of the herd".  Once again a canned answer that I have a hard time believing is founded on any science or population model.

You can't protect bucks by stockpiling does.  Think about it. If you hammer bucks and don't allow doe hunting, you eventually end up with a herd population that is heavily dominated by does and and a few young bucks. Many of the does will be older and less productive. The young bucks won't be as efficient at breeding as older bucks would. so many does wont get bred during the main rut. This is bad for the fawn crop not only in less deer being born, but it also makes them more susceptible to predation and fawns enter their first winter at a younger age and smaller size, also not good for them. The reason they are more prone to predation is there is safety in numbers. x amount of predators can only eat x amount of deer in x amount of time. Increase the time that the fawns are being born because does don't get bred in a timely manner, and the herd is vulnerable for a longer time. The older fawns get, the less susceptible they are to predation.

If you want to increase the buck to doe ratio, you can't do it by killing more bucks than you kill does. You have to kill more does than you do bucks. It's simple math. No matter how you protect young bucks to let them mature, the fact is, if you only harvest bucks and protect does, the buck to doe ratio will always be out of whack. That's why the new 4 pt restriction plus reduced doe harvest will never work in the long run. In fact it goes against the very system of managing deer that it was modeled after, the Quality Deer Management or QDM. QDM promotes a fairly large antlerless harvest in order to lower overall deer densities post-hunt so there are more resources (feed) for the remaining deer. An antler restriction and lowering the doe take or eliminating it is probably counter productive. The bucks still get taken, albeit a year later, but now you are stockpiling does and messing with buck/doe ratios.

[FLIZZ]

Ok, here's my final suggestion. Bring hound hunting back for jungle cats, ( Cougars do work on blacktail). Lock EVERY gate, however allow some kind of pass for handicapped folks. That would eliminate Poachers for the most part, also the lazy truck "hunters" would be weeded out of the woods, which then would increase the deer population. Therefor, The deserving outdoorsman would be rewarded with a higher deer population. even if you don't have the best set of legs, you don't have to go far behind a locked gate to get in the deer. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[Houndhunter]

Read a few pages, lots of opinions that are out of whack imo

You want more mature bucks? Than get on our fish and game dept about predator management. That's my 

[JPhelps]

The two main objectives in management is carrying capacity and buck to doe ratio.

In my opinion both the carrying capacity and buck to do ratios are lower than what they should be.  So in my opinion we need to increase both.

Which means controlling harvest through shorter seasons, limiting hunters, antlers restrictions or whatever other means yield the results of a higher buck:doe ratio and overall population.

[Curly]

Something that goes along the lines of increasing the blacktail deer population is food for the deer.  One thing that I've been noticing for probably the last 10 years or so is the clearcuts are usually void of any good feed.  They get sprayed with roundup and they are all brown and dead looking with little for the deer to eat.  I don't know how we could convince managers to not spray for weeds, but I would think that would do a lot to help...(besides eliminating the taking of does).

[Ripper]

I see a lot of people talking about letting the spikes grow up into 2 points. Do you guy's realize that all those little forkies are yearlings! Not all yearlings are spikes. That's why the stats show almost twice as many 2 points are taken every year than spikes. They are all the same age class. That's why the biologist in 2 point or better area's say the 2 point restriction doesn't work, there aren't that many deer saved. You would have to go to 3 point or better to make a difference.

 There are a lot of blacktail's around, at least where I live in Snohomish County. I was amazed at how many deer I saw this spring during the spring bear hunt in Monroe. Just because you may not see a lot of them doesn't mean they aren't there. They are sneaky buggers! Get off the beaten path, sit down, be quiet, watch the wind.    The day I shot mine this year, it was the only deer I saw, in fact it was the only one I saw the whole season.

[Curly]

That's a good point about the 2 points.  I'm not sold on the APR idea, but I am sold on limiting doe harvest more.  I just know that there are less deer now (at least in Thurston and Lewis counties) than there were 20 years ago and less now than 10 years ago.  Just seems to keep going down from what I can tell.

[Houndhunter]

Something that goes along the lines of increasing the blacktail deer population is food for the deer.  One thing that I've been noticing for probably the last 10 years or so is the clearcuts are usually void of any good feed.  They get sprayed with roundup and they are all brown and dead looking with little for the deer to eat.  I don't know how we could convince managers to not spray for weeds, but I would think that would do a lot to help...(besides eliminating the taking of does).

You know what I've always wondered, how is spraying the clear cuts with chemicals more environmentally friendly compared to the old way of just burning them after they logged???